1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The farmer made a request to the extension office to advise him on how to rehabilitate a barren area on his farm.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: A farmer contacted the extension office, which investigated and then recommended establishing and planting of Atriplex Nummalaria as a fodder crop and ground cover on the barren area. The farmer was given the necessary information on how to proceed. There is no waiting list. This place was the first one in South Africa where this method was used in the field. The research and adaptations were done at Grootfontein.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To equip the farmer with the necessary information and data to implement the technology. Information: technician drawing the roads, how much plants and how often they must be irrigated.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of expert knowledge by farmer and inexperience labour; cost of establishing crop

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	none
planning	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

consultative.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. consultative/land user driven.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Key elements: give advise, give knowledge; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Advisory

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was done by Grootfontein Agricultural Institute on Atriplex nummelaria as a supplementary feed.

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (Land owner): 100.0%
The service (extension officer) is free of charge, also the Information from Grootfontein

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Participation in decision making
Gain knowledge

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Landowner is part of decision making
Land users participation in increasing productivity of unproductive land
Make landowner aware of conservation and a good management system because of the costs involve in rehabilitation

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of knowledge

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Expert knowledge is needed
The land user must be aware of a problem and then approach the specialist

7.1 Methods/ sources of information